The Court allowed the appeal filed by the wife after finding that she was kept in the dark about a 2009 divorce decree.
The Supreme Court recently condoned the delay in a woman’s plea challenging an ex-parte divorce decree, observing that she had remained unaware of both the divorce proceedings and the resulting decree for nearly a decade.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ruled that she could not be faulted for the delayed approach to the Court when she was allegedly never informed of the decree passed against her.
Accordingly, the Court restored her appeal against the ex-parte divorce decree and reopened the question of whether the decree issued in 2009 was legally sustainable.
The matter stemmed from an ex-parte divorce decree passed by a trial court in 2009.
The wife contended that the decree had been granted without proper service of summons and in blatant disregard of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Order V Rules 17 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as Rules 51 and 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Court Rules, 1961. She asserted that she had no knowledge of either the divorce proceedings or the decree.
Notwithstanding the decree, the husband continued to visit the wife and remain in contact with her for several years. The wife alleged that this conduct effectively concealed the existence of the divorce decree, preventing her from discovering it for nearly a decade.
She claimed that it was only in 2019 that she first learnt that an ex-parte divorce decree had been passed in 2009.
Upon gaining this knowledge, she promptly approached the trial court by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. As the application was filed well beyond the period of limitation, she also sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
After examining the material on record, the trial court accepted the wife’s explanation, condoned the delay, and allowed her application. It held that the circumstances warranted interference, particularly in view of the allegation that summons had not been duly served and that the wife had acted promptly upon acquiring knowledge of the decree.
The husband assailed this order before the High Court. In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court set aside the trial court’s reasoned order condoning the delay, effectively foreclosing the wife’s challenge to the ex-parte divorce decree.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s interference, the wife moved the Supreme Court.
The principal issue before the apex court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s order condoning a substantial delay, particularly where the wife alleged that the ex-parte decree itself rested on defective service of summons.
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal and condoned the delay of nearly ten years.
The Court observed that the explanation tendered by the wife could not be summarily rejected and that the trial court had passed a well-reasoned order after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case.
It therefore held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the said order while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction.